In article <susansfE2Gst6.GL3@netcom.com>,
susansf@netcom.com (Susan S. Chin) wrote:>T&B Schmal (schmal@firstnethou.com) wrote:>: Perhaps the reason no one has commented is that no one has previously>: staked their reputations on a position that the new finding would>: support. Therefore it is useless.>>: Tom>>>Wooops, sorry. I pressed the "post" button too soon, so my previous >message should not have posted in the form it appears. Wanted to comment >on what Tom said above. My understanding of these new recent dates >for some 12 Java Homo erectus specimens (found at TWO sites, not 12 as I >had previously stated) is that they support the Out of Africa Hypothesis >more so than the Multi-Regionalists, at least in this part of Southeast >Asia. And that this linear model of Homo erectus ---> Homo sapiens will >need re-assessment. Obviously no one knew or ever suspected Homo erectus >was or could still have been around as recent as 30,000yrs ago. Of course, >those advocating the Multi-Regionalist Hypothesis such as Wolpoff are >quoted as saying these new finds are really Homo sapiens, not erectus.

I'm not sure how it supports the Out of Africa hypothesis unless there
is some modification to the replacement concept. Wolpoff argues that
certain non-adaptive traits are shared between Homo Erectus of Java
and modern Australians. If we accept genetic exchange, which Wolpoff
does, then the Out of Africa hypothesis might be supported but minus the
total replacement theory. However, there was no mention of genetic
exchange in the article, which still leaves the question open has to how
modern humans in SE Asia/Pacific share certain non-selective
cranial features with Java Man (Homo Erectus).